immediately, prosecutors, some prosecutors and many people thought that this had been a disastrous mistake, an overreach, and subsequently, the supreme court for somewhat technical reasons overturned the conviction. they did not say arthur andersen was in a thing, but they did say that the conviction was wrong. so the department of justice took a lesson from this and the lesson was -- we should really be extraordinarily cautious about indicting corporations. in fact, we should be deeply fearful of it. i think they grossly over learned the lesson from arthur andersen. subsequently, they were investigating tax fraudsters at andher counting firm, kpmg, try to pressure kpmg to stop paying the attorneys fees for the employees under investigation. they tried to make the company waive its corporate privilege so

attorney would waive lien privilege, which is something that corporations had ahind often, and a judge in scathing ruling said that the prosecutors had violated the constitution, violated the constitutional rights of these defendants, and that also led to this rolling back of these prosecutorial powers and techniques, which has led them to really be rendered unable to to investigate people at the higher echelon of corporate america. host: this is peter on our republican line. caller: mr. eisinger, no comment, this was a failure of government basically. i would like to give context to the situation. in the late 1970's during the carter administration, they develop the community reinvestment act, which made fannie and freddie about three percent of their purchases of

the prime mortgages. in 1995, there was a lot of pressure on the clinton administration to increase the amount of mortgages that were given to poor and minority people, so clinton developed these public-write it harder ships, which forced th fannie and freddie to increase their subprime mortgages. at what happened at that time, it was requiring that fannie and freddie by 55% of their purchases, sub prime mortgages. unfortunately, this policy was through into the bushes administration post up mr. bush increased his investment by giving a $13,000 tax credits to people, first-time home mortgages. host: with all the context, if

you have a question for our guest, please. why mr. bush did not reduce the mandates on freddie and fannie because banks were being punished for not supplying mortgages to poor people, and mr. bush continued that policy, to his destruction. host: ok. mr. eisinger. guest: this is a myth. you are almost entirely incorrect, i am sorry to say. it has been widely debunked it is kind of right wing fantasy that continues to live in certain circles, but very quickly, fannie and freddie actually lost shares during the bubble. fannie and freddie's mortgages have performed vastly better than private mortgages. the entities that were the worst of theers and the heart housing mortgage bubble will actually not subject to the community reinvestment act, and

int of the crisis was collateralized debt obligations and credit default swaps with aig, which were -- have nothing community the reinvestment act or mortgages, so this was really a private problem. this was not caused by the government. that is not to say that there a normative government regulatory failures, but they were regulatory failures of deregulation and lack of regulation rather than overregulation of the mortgages, and i encourage you to read more widely because that is basically not true. from steve is up next california on our independent line for jesse eisinger. caller: mr. eisinger, a lot of what happened started here in the inland empire in california. i do not understand -- it took me a long time to understand what happened. it was not illegal, like you

said, and no money down? stated income? and these adjustable's they came up with. it was not illegal, but i mean, it was -- people do not realize i think how much of a crisis it was. hadink that the government not handled it correctly. we very easily could have slipped into a depression. you.: i agree with we could have easily slipped into a depression. theink that we did have worst financial crisis since the great depression, and we have still not recovered from it. the economy is still reeling from it. i think that some of the activity was actually illegal. i think there was a series of predatoryending -- lending that should have been more significantly investigated. a bit ofk there was

complicity on the part of borrowers to some extent. no one can walk into a bank and demand alone and get a loan from a bank that isn't willing to give it. the heart of lending is the agency of lending -- the bank itself. this is a crisis. it was a crisis that had many forms. many causes. there was a deregulated financial system and subsequently, there were crimes that were inadequately investigated by the department of justice. our guest covers wall street and finance and writes a regular column for the new york times. a story found in the magazine up theour times looking at -- new york times looking at the conviction. thisr as the reasons why is happening, you say the very

ambition of prosecutors played a prominent role. government lawyers don't want to spend their entire careers in the public sector. i think you have seen this play out, especially acutely in the u.s. attorney's office in manhattan. securitiese premier office in the country. he has emphasized insider-trading cases. they have racked up a spectacular record. 480 one 80 insider-trading wins. insider-trading turns out to be a much easier task to take. the kind of case earlier that is easier to prove. a jury understands it more easily and you get on the front page of the wall street journal. you seem to be a hero.

then, when you go and put your resume out to the firms to get a times the money to be partner there, you have made your reputation. what you haven't done is take on the highest players at the top edge lawns of corporate -- top echelons of corporate america. they missed the opportunity and failed in trying to address the really significant crime. many prosecutors and former prosecutors told me that themselves. these them told me, insider-trading cases made our careers, but they don't change the world. another told me that he thought the government had failed. host: our next call is jerry from indiana. on our democrats line. lehman brothers was one

of the big culprits in this whole ps go. the ceo -- this whole fiasco. why wasn't the ceo prosecuted? walked throughle the lehman brothers investigation. what i think ultimately happened was, there were not adequate resources put into it by the department of justice. they got overwhelmed and there was a lack of coordination. it was assigned to three different offices. push,uggests an enormous but broke up the investigation and rendered it inadequate. to onemately came down woman in the u.s. attorney's office in manhattan.

she was very confident and smart. that is not the kind of resources to bring to such a complex calamity. i don't think the ceo was adequately investigated. i don't think they adequately investigated the cfos who misrepresented the state of lehman brothers in the months leading up to its failure. the ceo still a multimillionaire. he's living a fairly quiet life, trying to stay out of the limelight. feeling for the good about himself because he is a free man. host: what's the role of the securities and exchange commission? guest: they blew it as well. i don't think they adequately sanctioned firms. they certainly did not refer enough criminal cases to the

doj. they tried to be aggressive ing firms, but they also have had an erosion of investigative trials. they have lost some trials, which have been a significant black eye. the current commissioner has a big job in front of her to try to improve the morale of the up the skill set. whether she is the right person somewhatjob, i'm skippable. she had been a white-collar defense attorney, representing some of the highest, most who hadt defendants been investigated in the wake of the financial crisis. she had previously been a well-respected u.s. attorney in the southern district of new

york. lie is a instincts question that has not been answered. host: have we seen the ends of these types of cases going forward? guest: yes. the financial crisis investigations are largely over. they have made unusual statements, saying that they have wound up investigations. usually they don't do that. we may see some civil actions still. the statute of limitations has not expired on some civil charges. that may still happen. as for criminal charges, no one is going to go to prison for the financial crisis. host: republican line. california. caller: good morning. i don't think i have heard you talk about the repeal of glass

-- they became a lehman brothers type of business. they mixed conservative loans with ridiculous derivative investments. that is what caused the implosion 13 years later. it's amazing that he is disregarding the whole aspect of individuals, homebuyers who were acting completely responsible and mortgaging down on their home loans. it is attributable to the derivatives. 300 billion. frome have walked away their home loans. nobody forced them to buy those homes. in certain states like florida and nevada, 35% of the home sales were second homes. just likeing a risk

they did in the tech boom. they got loans attached and walk away from them. the viewer is exactly repeal whiche gradually happened over the decade of the 1990's was a big mistake. a democraticnder president and a republican congress. administration was part of the deregulation of the financial industry, which was a .isastrous mistake or di it's a failure, certainly. homeownersindividual , i don't think that's relevant to the department of justice's approach to corporate

white-collar investigations and whether they can prosecute adequately the individuals at the highest echelons of corporate america, which is what i'm focused on. host: was wall streethol scared of what was going on with prosecutions? guest: they purport to be quite scared about it. they lawyered up. they feel aggrieved and persecuted. really feark they the government anymore. they certainly don't fear the fcc. one defense lawyer said to me once that it's not practice to fcc because they are so incompetent. that theve understood

department of justice is not competent either. i don't want to minimize this. prosecutorial power is an awesome power. bringing the government's attention can be a terrifying and all something. even for a wealthy individual or ceo. we don't want persecutors to overreach or abuse the constitutional right of people, even ceos. what we want them to do is adequately investigate and have the skill set to investigate. investigations of individuals are very different from investigations of corporations. especially if you are focused on settling with the corporation. what has happened is the balance has tipped and the pendulum has swung toward the settlements, deferred prosecutions. this has gone from investigations of individuals,

which are painstaking and take a long time. you need to work your way up to put people and get to the top. they are arrested, they do what is known in finances as an expected value analysis. they weigh the cost of fighting with the best and worst outcomes. guest: you are going up against people who do finance for a living. they will run the odds. the odds tip in their favor, when they resist cooperation. they also understand that if they can remember things or claim that they did everything with the best of intent, a lot of corporate, white-collar crime comes down to what's in your heart or what's in your head. prosecutors need to read your mind and know your secret feelings. did you intend to lie about that or did you just make a mistake? should you have been informed about this?

were you informed about this? those things are very hard to find. these cases are really not easy to investigate. as i said earlier, just because job is hard,r's it's no excuse. these guys are plain at the top of their game here and they need to be good at their job. host: janice from nashville, tennessee. independent line. longtime detroit guy. a few questions. it would help if we simplified the language. the writer is talking in terms intellectual content that people don't understand. if you put it into layman's terms, there was a wonderful book, the prince of darkness. he was asked about it and you

he said you have to talk to the people. i would love to hear your thoughts on the incestuous nature of big business. they extort money. where is the reciprocity to protect the people? i see none. the conversation is way too soft in terms of excuses and inadequacy. if you have the brightest people of running the country, the system will fail. the housing market, banking market, real estate market -- it's a joke. i would love to hear your comment about reaganomics. i think there are reasons for our systems. i want to set out to try to explore them. that is what i try to do in the piece. there are these ideas floating around that there is a conspiracy.

maybe the treasury secretary brought eric holder into a room and said, we will not prosecute the banks. that did not happen. what i think happened was that there was a series of mistakes and fiascoes and adverse rulings from the courts. these are complex as tums. -- complex systems. there is an incestuous revolving door where people from white-collar firms go to the government and become prosecutors or become executives in the department of justice or high-level fcc executives. firmshey go back to those and are preserving their viability to go back to be a partner. you want to do certain things and achieve certain goals.

but you are very worried about rocking the boat. also worried about losing, which is embarrassing and carries a taint. this is a big problem. we have a big problem with the revolving door. there are these other issues where they have lost tools. it's a complex mix of factors that have led us to where we are today. host: glenda from savannah, georgia. democrats line. caller: good morning. i have learned something. i wish i could incorporate myself because i would have religious rights and free speech rights. then i would never have to do -- i call because of martha stewart. perp walk and the they televised it. they had a long list of things she was charged with. she only ended up being indicted for lying to the fbi.

she really served her time and she was embarrassed in front of the nation. i would think, if some executive mygns some papers saying, " most important person is my investor," i would think there is something they could get to make them do the perp walk. guest: i think the martha stewart prosecution was overreached. it was fairly silly. she did lie to the fbi. illegal. foolish and the prosecutors get angry about that. i don't think she was one of the more serious corporate criminals. corporateera in which

ceos had real fears that they could be sent to prison. , martha stewart all went to prison for crimes. what we have lost now in this country is the ability to adequately investigate people in .he c suite for crime it goes beyond the big banks. it goes beyond the financial crisis. i think this is a white collar crisis that goes into the pharmaceutical industry am a big -- this erosion of investigative skill set and at thekill set department of justice that gives rise to corporate executive impunity. host: she mentioned the perp walk. one who is mentioned

in perp walkthem fashion. guest: he was a grandstanding egomaniac who was overly aggressive. in the probably needed wake of the financial crisis was somebody like giuliani or because these guys did not really care about their good standing in the corporate, white-collar world. to preserve trying the viability to go and make a lot of money in the private sector. ure lyricalt ambitions -- future political ambitions. what they did have was a fearlessness. we needed some of that. we needed a ulysses s. grant.

what we got was a bunch of mcclellan's. host: danielle from california. independent line. i am a multimillion dollar investor. ira present -- i represent investors who have invested hundreds of millions of dollars. the management corporations manage the property in such a 15%they charge interest on the debts. the debts are such an amount that when the property is sold, when there are debts that are not legitimate and are paid, the tenant is left penniless.

i have been dealing with people and i'm trying to help them before the attorney general's office. some have committed suicide. and are elderly citizens these management companies are preying on senior citizens. addressed?t be is that the same as arthur andersen or the lehman brothers? i'm sorry to hear about your case. i'm not familiar with it. failedent wildly homeowners who were deeply underwater in their homes and is were foreclosed on. this was a policy disaster from the obama administration were

they implemented program after program after program that was wildly inadequate. they refused to fix it -- did not address it to fix it quickly enough. there was a big concern that fixing that and helping homeowners would hurt the banks. , ahink this is a scandal tragedy for the country. individual homeowners were deeply harmed by it. 's piecesse eisinger

>> there is a schedule of each of our network so you can tune in whenever you want, play podcasts of recent shows from our signature programs, like afterwards, the communicators, and q&a. take c-span with you wherever you go. download your free app online for your iphone, android or blackberry. this week on q&a, new york times magazine correspondent and author mark lubavitch discusses his new book titled, "this town." funeral wasin a plenty of parking in america's gilded capital. >> mark lubavitch, author of this town. i want to show you some video and get you to comment on it.

come to think of it, i can't remember the last time that i heard the words in a kissinger and greyhound bus in the same sentence. apparently, there is also some confusion that day. my good friend and colleague pat moynihan wandered onto the wrong bus that day and ended up at a promise keepers rally in arlington, virginia, as you may recall. the marriage is obviously going very well, indeed. >> spina bifida roast. what did you see in that clip that you might comment on? >> nothing. it is andrea mitchell, who is a beingic journalist roasted by chris dodd. just seeing that right now, it looked like a very friendly,

almost clubby washington event. jokes are told. that's what i saw. >> anything wrong with that? >> not really. i think the reference he was making was andrea mitchell and alan greenspan's wedding, which had just been held around then. look, they are a power couple. andrea mitchell is a great journalist and alan greenspan is one of the most powerful economic minds and economic forces in the last few decades. that is an interesting dynamic, where you have these crossover between friendship and professional life and social life and so forth. >> i think that chris dodd is emblematic of his is permitted

-- is this permanent class. it describes the permanence of washington people. rated goodfe is inside the beltway. >> here are some of the exposure you had already. let's watch this. >> this town. >> you said we described the fee is overfed on cell flood -- on self love. wow, mark, all kinds of reactions to "this town." is duh. , thy name >> i hear there is no index. people are up in arms about it.

"washington post" created a bootleg index. >> here's one of the things that mark writes. think that was a wet fettuccine slap as opposed to a punch. >> everybody thinks they are in it or are afraid they are in it. >> why are people that he wrote about it so happy about this book. ? >> beats me. the speculation around this took on a life of its own. look, it is nice to have a book that people are talking about, and obviously what happens is that people focus on who's up and who's down, looks worse, what news is broken, what nuggets are out there.

ultimately, i don't want people to miss the more serious point which is in fact doing very well in a very gilded age, while the rest of the country has suffered. ?> any reaction are you surprised by david? >> not really. we read a book, a lot can go wrong. that is the way i approach the neurotic insomewhat my writing and reporting. a lot can go wrong in 110,000 words. -- ifetty shocked by there's been criticism from the inside, it has mostly been in the vein of, how dare he? i mean how dare an insider give away the secret handshake. how dare an insider talk about other insiders in a way that perhaps might not be in keeping with the codes that we have in washington. keep asking me why are

people uncomfortable here. i welcome the discomfort, but i also think, this is journalism, this is what we do. we should invite discomfort. >> you write him got a man in this book urges a bit woody looks and sounds like. >> ronald reagan was very collegial. , he was a bold stroke leader. use primary colors, not pastels. comfortable in focusing on the 3-4 things that he ran on in 1980, that he knew he wanted to achieve as president. he was very comfortable inside his own skin. he hired people like jim baker our baker, me and others to get everything else done very at also assist him on rebuilding our national security. cutting down on wasteful spending, cutting taxes, making sure that regulations didn't get fundamentally.

ending the cold war. >> why was he a subject in your book? >> can i posit is emblematic of a former. he is a class of people who hasn't an office. he is white house chief of staff in the reagan years. he has now been a former white house chief of staff, which is legitimate. that is what he did. he has sort of continued that identity as a lobbyist and has been a very coveted consultant and wise man. he talks about reagan a lot. look, he is done very well for himself as a former. obviously, yet existing was career in government, also. i deposit him as emblematic of someone who is set for life after having had his ticket punched at the highest level in the white house. a halfaid he was six and months as the chief of staff and has been dining out on it for 20 some years. >> yeah, that is true. >> is that wrong? >> is not wrong, it just is.

it is how washington works. what is interesting about washington in this age is that once you have a title, even if it is a very short title, even if you have been voted out after one term, you can stay in washington and be a former chief of staff, a former congressman, a former chief of staff to congressman actual why. that is marketable. you are in the club. striking departure from the days in which people would come to washington to serve, serve a little bit and then go back to the farm. that is how the founders had intended it. there's a new dynamic now. a lot of it starts with money and the money available and the resources available for people to do very well here. >> robert barnett is who? >> robert barnett is a superlawyer. i don't know if you have to go to a special law school to become a superlawyer, but he is an attorney, he represents

republican presidents, democratic presidents, the clintons, the cheney's. he helps people get big but deals, he isbook sort of a fixer. cornered the market on helping people in broadcast media, people in the white house and people all over sort of cash in on their post government .ives or their post public life >> here is what barnett looks like. >> we have a strong business department which does deals and acquisitions and structuring. .hen we have things like i do i represent about 350 television news correspondents and their contracts. in addition to representing the x politicians come out, represent a lot of major corporate executives.

i get a lot of civil litigation, a lot of government relations things, media relations things, criminal investigations. my own practice is generally described like that. >> keyword by the hour. if you hire him, you pay them lots of money by the hour instead of a cut of your book. did you ever think of going to him? >> no. for a lot of reasons i didn't. if ildn't write about them did. ultimately, i think bob has been very successful in being able to go to people who are going to get $10 million book yields because when you look at the hourly rate, is going to come to a lot less in the 15% which is what an agent or standard literary agency is. no, i didn't think about going to him. i don't think i'm be going -- and i think i will be going to him in the future. >> how long should take you to think of the first sentence of your book, which is, "tim russert is dead"?

funeral like event when this giant of a news man died in 2008. essentially, the scene is this morning that was also very public heard it was the kennedy center of the performing arts. there is a lot of networking going on, there's a lot of congratulating going on. people were working it. i thought that was a quintessential washington seen the quintessential washington moment. , stevenson, atrs the times a day, this is a good line, you should use this. he suggested attacking on. i thought about it. i was worried it was a little crass at first, but it works. k. ive full credit to dic >> here is tom brokaw, brian williams and bruce springsteen from the funeral.

our friend timothy russert was a man who woke every morning as if he just won the lottery the day before. he was determined to take full advantage of this good fortune that he could not quite believe and shared with everyone around him. all on all experts after tim's heart. we were all recipients of its might, the generosity and compassion that flowed from it. i felt qualified to conduct a , alld tour of tim's heart listed. >> is a scanned the front row i got to the left side of the stage and there was a guy in a crisp white shirt and tie. i looked, and it was tim. he had on that big irish smile that. absolutely nothing. he was beaming like the rising sun. more about why tim russert got your attention? >> i

think the reason tim's death got my attention was, first of all the spectacle around it, which was awesome. it was compared to state funerals, literally, like to gerald ford and ronald reagan's, the aftermath of their deaths. he was a center. he lived at the nexus of media, politics, money. you needed tim russert. when he died in june of 2008, i saw it as an inflection point in media in politics and politics in the country. it was the dawn of an epic general election campaign which resulted in barack obama getting elected. the economy was about to crash. the first campaign that was fully acted out in the online -- in cyberspace. politico was this new force and

was gaining traction in that election. in a sense, tim russert's death .eft a vacuum in the space there is his real anarchy in the tenet gallery with new media coming in. the country was uncertain. in a sense, the center had not really been replaced since tim died. for a lot of reasons, tim was a consummate washington figure and also a consummate american figure. >> how can one man be that important today with all the stars? >> first of all, "meet the press" as a franchise was the place where politicians had to go to prove their mettle. yet some unlike sarah palin bursting on the scene a few months after tim's death and you ,onder if tim were still there would have let her anywhere near him? you wonder what would happen -- i guess tim was the one unquestioned authority of sunday

morning, but also, you need to prove your mettle there heard think anyone has come along since. son, why?d about his >> luke russert is interesting. he is sort of a prince. he got a job with nbc very soon after. he gave an incredibly moving eulogy at his father's funeral days after his best friend was taken away from him. luke -- funny, a lot of people cast aspersions on him. nepotism gets tossed around a lot. is obviously he would not gotten the job of luke smith where his name. obviously, washington takes care of its own, but luke russert had an interesting few years. i spent a fair amount of time talking with him and i've been impressed with how he is handled himself and really come through a lot of the criticism he has he is hairy he seems like doing ok. >> i'm going to show you what you say was a magic moment for luke russert. given a you -- he

had earlier given a eulogy for his father. this is from the kennedy center. >> earlier today, i delivered my father's eulogy. i would like to share a few excerpts. i'm sorry to break the mystery charity group and university and club he spoke to, but the guy had the same speech for all of you. he would just encourage a little bit, depending on who exactly was talking to. so, i would like to do the same thing from what i said earlier. [applause] that is what i would do. observe this funeral, you saw a lot of things that you didn't like or thought were worthy of your commenting on. >> a lot of what i saw was actually in the aisle beforehand and afterwards. a had very much the feel of cocktail party.

deliberately was a cocktail party on the roof of the kennedy center afterwards. i thought the speaking program, some of the features of it were very good, but, look, it was something of a public spectacle. it was something of a branding opportunity for nbc. there were definitely some differences of opinion on how to proceed within the family, with nbc. ultimately, i was struck by the spectacle that it had become. as a second book, tim russert would've known better than anyone that it is not much about him, it was about who is going to fill his void. tom brokaw had a great line in which he said i want to welcome friends, family, and the biggest group of all, those who think they will replaced him on meet the press. i thought that was a very knowing line. i thought luke's line there was very knowing, because in a sense, he was kidding, obviously, but the notion of telling the same stories over and over again and tweaking it for your audience, tim russert did a lot of paid speeches.

he had a brand outside of his own space. like politicians, that is what happened. the hotel is in stores stories and it becomes part of imprint. -- part of your imprint. thatuld you say overall the industry has given you a lot of publicity. ? >> i guess, i really don't have anything to compare it to. >> you had some strong language about david gregory. >> i guess. a lot of it was -- i suppose. he was not a big player in the book. there are certainly some lines that could been construed as unfriendly. say -- iybody else would do just not rather talk sure there is am

some awkwardness. i'm sure there are some meetings that i'm not privy to in which we will keep him off. fascinated. i'm sure the reviews come i'm sure you'll read some bad ones. -- e >> why would you expect me to read a bad review? >> other no, because you're brian. frankly, there weren't that many negative comments. "this author is going to profit -- ji >> that is emblematic of a certain kind of criticism i've gotten. he's of people of thought,

a little bit to mean and places a little too incisive. --t is a school of thought then there is a school of thought that says i went easy on them because i am an insider. knock wood, but that is not the motivation here. ultimately, there are people on both sides who say that i went easy and those who say i didn't go easy enough. i don't really know what to say except i guess that might be a review.-- a balanced >> yeah, i don't quite know what

that means. first of all, the overwhelming number of subjects in the book are well known and quite powerful on their own merits. most of them are elected officials and former elected officials. i can't control how people perceive me afterwards. >> one of the characters the book, this is not a character, this is someone euros or see about, a man named michael hastings, who died recently. here's a clip. >> and in the people you're following these wars and averaged out to me, they have never criticized my reporting, in fact, a lot of them said to me, this is what its really like. that, to me, is the greatest compliment. if the think tankers and washington are upset, i feel

like i have probably done my job. >> here striving at 4:00 in the morning in los angeles. he was 35 years old. why did you read about him? >> i wrote about him before he died. , but ultimately, michael hastings wrote what is arguably the most controversial story of president obama's first term. which thele and general and people around them out of school. he quoted from some of those conversations. there's a gray area and some disagreement on whether ground rules were violated. ultimately, he wanted getting fired for those remarks and there was quite a backlash against hastings. i wasn't there, i don't know what ground rules were or were not violated, ultimately, he was cast out. there was a how dare you outcry

against him from a lot of established journalists. i thought it did have a circling the wagons category because michael hastings is an outsider. he is not part of any club or he broke a big story. when noteworthy that woodward and bernstein broke watergate, they were outsiders. quite often you need to be outside of those unwritten rules and that club in order to maybe see it freshly. she criticized michael hastings, to you or to somebody else? >> that was in an interview with howie kurtz on cnn. >> what was the point? >> a thinker point was, something does not add up here. usually people in the field, if

the brass trusts you and they feel you have treated them fairly, you will be invited back. look, michael a teams would not be invited back into a setting like that. i thought as a window into -- that was a window into the axis of journalism and the importance of being inside the team. obviously, journalists and the principal separate different functions. hastingshink michael is worried about the next story. if you're a reporter and a campaigner the field somewhere, you're going to be thinking about an ongoing relationship. laura logan was extremely critical. burns, was actually critical. i have never been a war reporter or battlefield reporter.

>> even the kind of book you've written here about a lot of people, most of them you have seen at a public event, is michael hastings good or bad? that whole idea of getting inside and then blowing the lid off? look, without knowing the particulars, i think he's good. i think you wrote the truth as he knew it, he fact checked it. obviously, i'm not going to litigate whatever disagreements you may have had over ground that, but i was struck at thet the coverage around story was, why would they let him in? were striking. it was written as a process mistake rather than a mistake of over candor. did you carry a notebook? you carry a recorder? >> there was a travelogue aspect

to some of it. i interviewed a few hundred people. a lot of the interviews were taped. sometimes i would take notes after an event. it is a real hybrid of different forms. >> when did he know you had a book? >> when it was done. >> when was the first mention? i officially did the deal to write the book in april or may of 2010. times right after the piece i did on mike allenwood was very widely read. that seems to get the attention of some people who wanted, is that washington really works today? cycle, what today's news

today's ecology of washington looks like? some people had an idea of fleshing it into a larger picture. >> you pointed out in the article and in this book that no how mike allen lives. what is that about? >> a thing mike allen is an eccentric figure. he's a very prominent journalist here. he's extremely private and that was an awkward story. him at washington post for many years. i've known for years. so in some degrees it was a matter journalism exercise. mike is a character. andnd being a character being very private, he is also an extremely successful, prominent, influential journalist heard i wanted to try to reflect that.

he is someone who really does drive the way people talk about and cover news around here. >> i thought another person we don't know much about that drives the discussion is a guy named matt drudge. are these the only people that mattered better in this book are they just before you pick? >> they're just people i picked. couldn't be comprehensive. you have to pick people who you think are typical and make a broader point. matt drudge, obviously a very -- the drudgete report is a powerful website. i didn't read about him. it is been around since the late 90's. i think it is pretty well established. politico might've suffered here a little bit because one, its new. de niro times, the washington post, the l.a. times, have been

around for a long time. mike allenwood for political. >> for those who might not know who he is, we have some video of him. they can let us know how we are processing this. >> that merge into one super cam tonight. the last few nights have been a lot of drama and surprises. tonight, we think we know what is going to happen, right? the big drama is whether my production of a single-digit win for mitt romney is right or whether the exit polls of a double-digit lead our correct. >> it struck me that mike allen is all over town. we see them all over this network. matt drudge hides down in miami. i'm sure he does like to hear the word hides, but he hasn't been around for three or four years.

>> look, mike is shoe leather, he is everywhere. you will get e-mails from him at all hours. you look up and all of a sudden he is on c-span and msnbc. mike is an insider. don't think he would pretend otherwise. >> and if you live here and you get in his playbook, what does it look like everyday? >> is an e-mail of a few thousand words. it is a synopsis of news that might have broken overnight, what mike has decided on things that will drive the conversation that day, to uses terminology. there are a lot of birthday shout outs, sometimes there are personal commentary, it is a hodgepodge that, speaking from my own experience, is something

that keeps people coming back. more importantly, tv bookers read it religiously, editors read it with -- religiously. vehicle andside setting the agenda on a given day. >> we will get to trent lott ,ater, what in the book you say naturally, lot hates washington. >> everyone hates -- everyone claims to hate washington. there are very few washington exceptional is to say they love it here. i would like people to think that trent lott would prefer to be home in mississippi or wherever else, but he is here because, as he said, this is where the problems are and this is where the money is. trent lott is a former senator who's in a position to do very well here. probably the only other place where he could do proportionately well would be in mississippi.

>> in that clip, we showed mike >> the executive editor of politico. >> i assume this quote him directly to you from him? what is he saying there? are we old-timers worthless? >> jim is putting forth the view that the age at which the 20 boys on the bus are setting the

agenda in their one story they write or file a day are over. one of the missions of "politico" is to democratize the conversation. 100,000 people can read mike allen every day. everyone can blog about it. what jim was saying is that there is this wild west. there is this notion that the conversation has been broken open. i wouldn't be as disparaging, especially of the body types of my forbearers in the journalism world. he was probably just trying to draw a sharp contest -- contrast. >> is there such a group, middle-age, left of center, overweight men who decided how the way all of us see politics and governance. you can. -- >> -- came here in -- >> 1997.

i was at the post for --"new york times" for seven years. >> a lot of those guys are long gone. is that what he's talking about? >> presumably. he seemed to be talking about the boys on the bus caricature. johnny apple's. in some ways, it is a strawman. jim did more for his people. i did more for my people. the way in which it used to be is often thrown out there is a sacred cow. nostalgia or vilification is a little extreme on both ends. >> margaret carlson wrote a review of your book. have you seen it? >> everyone tells me not to read reviews. since i have not followed that advice, i have seen it. >> she says, even though you are

tough on the club -- define the club. >> this free-floating cast of elected officials, former elected officials staff who are lobbyists, journalists, hangers on that constitutes what we call official washington or insider washington. >> are you in the club? >> yes. >> she says though you are tough on the club, you are a man with a heart. >> i would agree with that. >> i have not seen the reference to your heart. what did you think? you lost a brother years ago. when was that. >> my younger brother. he was in a car accident when he was 17. i was 20, a junior in college. he was a passenger and his best friend was driving. a speeding tow truck was going to the scene of an accident and hit the car. phil was in a coma for 5, 6 years and eventually died when

he was 23. i was living in boston. one of the reasons i went back to boston, i went to the university of michigan -- just so i could see him after work. that was an awful time in my life. >> what impact did it have? >> i don't know. i guess a pop psychological analysis is that maybe i trying to succeed for two. i don't know. i miss him. i think about what it would be like to have him as a great friend in adulthood, and my sister and i, two sisters and i are very close. that empty space will always be there. the lost potential, and everything. without putting it into granite construction, it's mostly sadness -- grand construction, it's mostly sadness.

>> your sister works at "the huffington post." >> i thought it was important to disclose immediately that lori worked in a very adjacent -- close, adjacent office. >> did anybody get mad enough at you to communicate to you about the book? >> sure. >> give me an example. >> maybe i wish he would consider, there were some how-dare-you's. i've been in this town for 50 years, and you focused on this and that. i'm being deliberately vague here. i don't want to violate private conversations. there have not been many. i'm sure there is a lot of chatter about this and what i

have done. nothing of note. i was surprised. it has been out for a couple of weeks now. the response from the aggrieved parties has been muted. >> given the way you talk about this town, in the end, doesn't everyone who appears in your book really benefit? based on the way you say the town operates. i've got the index here from "the washington post" with names in there. people rest to the "post" -- rushed to the "post" to see it. >> it is interesting. a number of people have mock complaint, and said, how could i not be in their? -- there? >> i didn't make the cut, but you didn't make the cut. that was a tweet. >> he was a character not mentioned once in my book but was mentioned a lot in coverage

of the book. he was a former lawyer in the clinton administration, now a crisis pr guy. he's very vigorous and successful in getting attention for himself. he mock complaint about not being in there, but then thanked me. then all of a sudden people were talking about davis. >> my son went to this quote in your book. i was at a buffet table. chris matthews blamed the story for costing him a job he really wanted. chris matthews is known to be someone who'll tell people exactly exactly what he thinks. did he tell you off? >> i wrote a profile of chris. it was the spring of 2008. most people who know him said it

captured chris very well. chris did not like the profile. it was always a little awkward to run into him. he got over it. ultimately chris and i are fine. the chapter you are reading from, there is a scene at the end where chris said something to the effect -- bottom line, chris and i are fine. >> didn't matter whether you were fine or not? -- did it matter whether you were fine or not? >> if you do your job, you do it honorably and you serve your sources and readers and bosses and the truth, i don't think you have anything to worry about. >> you talked about members of congress and former members of congress. you right here, this was a slight hedge compared to what chris dodge -- dodd told me when asked if he would consider being a lobbyist.

we see this a lot. why? >> i don't know. it's a common reflex. when you're in office, it is considered unseemly to say that you are looking for your next job or your lobbying job. once you're out of office, it is if it's fixed -- the etch-a-sketch is clean. people are free to make a living. they are free to do this, whether they say they are going to or not. there is no penalty for lying. i wrote this as part of a much larger chapter on former is doing just that. it wears you down. it makes people like me cynical. you have these idealistic change machines, like the obama 2008

machine. very successful campaign. for a powerful, delivered very deftly by the then senator. they said they were not going to opt out of the campaign finances. then they started raising all kinds money, and they opted out. they said they were not going to work with super packs in his campaign. suddenly they were getting outgunned seriously, and said they were going to work with super pac's. they said they were not going to have lobbyists in the white house, and then they made exceptions. there is any number of never mind's that this administration will just sort of exercise like to get out of jail free card. it wears you down. i say that as a journalist and someone who would like to think better of people when they say they're going to do certain things. >> what did you think of government when at the university of michigan?

>> i didn't study it. i grew up with an old-fashioned respect for institutions. when i was in ann arbor, the one election i was there was the 1984 election. vice president bush spoke at the steps of the michigan union on the anniversary -- i guess the peace corps was announced by john f. kennedy. maybe 1984, 1983. i remember him being heckled. i remember him being completely appalled that everyone in that office -- being completely appalled that anyone in that office would be heckled. i was not politically active at all, i remembered being struck by the level of passion and emotion and rudeness that could prevail in an environment on a

politically active campus. >> the cantankerous liberal appropriator retired in 2010. tell us about richard. >> he is someone who is an tell us about richard. >> he is someone who is an elected official, congressman, presidential candidate. one of the most passionate, seemingly sincere people you would ever see. one of my favorite political events was seeing him on the eve of the caucuses in 2004 at a teamsters rally in marshalltown, iowa. all these huge trucks came in. they would get him into his windbreaker. he is the son of a milkman driver.

it was a great labor rally. as soon as he got out of office, he represented any number of corporate interests but had spotty records in labor relations. he reversed a number of positions. he has become -- seen by many as someone who has checked whatever ideals he had at the door once he left congress to the purposes of doing well after. >> you say by 2010, his government affairs was listing annual billings at $6.59 million. then you go on to talk about how prounion he was in congress.

you used the c-word, cynical. we are told to be skeptical, not cynical. when do you walk over that line? >> when you see this. when you see it happening so regularly. it is this reflex in washington where it is seen as acceptable to do this. people can make a living. people can do what they want. this is post a be a city built on public service. maybe this is quite an outdated. -- quaint and outdated. the idea that self service has taken over the city to a green -- degree that has become offensive is a story that has not been fully told. >> before we finish, can you think if there are people you would nominate for being on the other side of this?

members of congress or public officials who you think you're not cynical about? before we do that, you write about dire need of a recovery summer. what happened to evan bayh? >> he was a former senator from indiana. he was very ostentatious on the way out. he wrote an op-ed for the "new york times" about how awful it had become, how he wanted to make a difference, how he was burned out on all of it. he talked about partisanship. evan bayh then immediately joined the chamber of commerce. he got a pundits gig on fox. he talked in that ed about

becoming a teacher and making a difference in kids' lives. ultimately, he is another example of a whole string of examples of both parties that i talk about. >> when you talked about trent, the fact that he said he hated washington, you say this on page 170. he was a little shifty when he quit the senate. why was he shifty? >> he was asked if the timing of his resignation -- which took a lot of people by surprise -- all of a sudden, he quits. he joins a former colleague in lobbying. a rule is going into effect in which there was a lobbying ban. it went from one year to two years. essentially, it was a timing issue. it is pretty widely remarked

upon. >> i want to show you some video from 1984, before you came to washington. this is "the larry king show." radio only. you will see a couple people in the picture, including rod nesson. >> this is larry king in washington, serving america for 50 years. this is a mutual radio network. >> this is barry manilow. i've written a lot [inaudible] >> all right.

>> we're falling into delay, right? >> yes. >> what happened to tammy haddad? >> she doesn't have the white streak in the middle of her hair, which is their -- her trademark now. she is a longtime producer for larry king. she is a dynamo. she worked with chris matthews for a while. she and chris parted company around 2008. tammy reinvented herself as a for a purpose -- full purpose convener. she does a lot of consulting for media companies. it's not entirely clear what she does. she does seem to have a video component. she produces things. she is everywhere. she is someone who has made washington work for her. she would say that she is an

insider, she just likes to bring people together. she has been a very successful business woman. >> have you heard from her in how you portrayed her in this book? >> i portray her accurately, i think. everyone is entitled to their own story about themselves. i have not heard from tammy. >> kirk gardella. the chapter was adapted for the "new york times" magazine a couple of weeks ago. who is he? >> the former press secretary to darrell issa. issa was about to be the chairman of the house government oversight committee -- government reform committee. kurt was this incredibly transparent operator, someone whose ambitions he wore on his sleeve. he joined the workforce at 17, didn't go to college. i thought he was refreshing,

kind of a naked operator. for some reason, he let me follow him around. i was interested in him as a subject of the book. in the course of our dealings together, he forwarded me a bunch of e-mails that he was receiving on a day-to-day basis to try to give me a fuller picture of how he was spending his days. a little unusual. "political" got wind of it, and they wrote a story. it became a scandal, that he was sharing e-mails from people who didn't know their e-mails were being shared. he was eventually fired and then eventually rehired. >> why was he rehired by darrell issa? was he fired because he became the issue? >> i think he was fired because he messed up. at the time, it was decided

it has a very close relationship with darrell issa. he was very good at his job. darrell issa got a ton of press, largely thanks to kurt bartel. i think if he is watched closely, he can bury -- be very effective. >> you write a lot about harry reid. [video clip] >> we have 15 nominees who have been held up for an average of nine months. does this place need to be changed? yes. look at all these people. i don't mind you being here. >> what does that say about harry reid? >> harry reid is a real character.

he doesn't have a very well-defined verbal filtering device. he says what is on his mind. he's an odd character, someone who i think is fascinating. he kind of outsourced the things that a lot of senators care about, being on tv, getting credit. the big show horse speeches. he will relinquish that, being on sunday shows just so long as he gets to be in charge. harry reid decided to put all charisma on hold and just be the guy who is in charge. he is quirky as all heck. >> this quote was published in a review in the "wall street journal." it gets to your point. this is a quote from harry reid. he is one of the people who has meant so much to me, reid said of john kerry. you say that he tells lots of

people how much he loves them. >> he does. harry reid is a politician. he's been described as ruthless, but he's very effective. what was interesting to me was not so much his cynicism, but how oddly honest he is. you just read an example of him appearing to be dishonest. the 90 became majority leader in 2006, he was with schumer and they were watching the -- night he became the majority leader in 2006, he was with schumer and they were watching. he called everyone who won. he would punctuate every sentence with some variation, i

love you. i love you, hillary. whoever won that night. he looked at me and said, they need to hear that. what he meant was, their politicians. it wasn't so much as a wink. it was a matter of fact, harry reid statement. even though him telling john kerry he loves them on the floor of the senate on the day that john kerry announced he was not running for president again in 2006 -- he just said it. it felt right. john kerry seemed to appreciate it. it was public. they went on with their business. >> can you list five people in this town that if you did the opposite, probably a book no one would read, where you says that official is the antithesis? i read a tweet from somebody in politico, saying, what about the hard-working and serious journalists?

>> i would make the general point that this is not black and white. everyone is complicated. people's motives are complicated. a lot of them change over time. i don't separate myself from this world either. by living and operating in the system, being attached to a major news organization -- people think they can benefit are not benefit from some reason, so they talk to me. you see this as a game. hopefully, ultimately, these are people. a lot of this exists in gray's. -- grays. there are a lot of people who are in it for the right reasons. or least to started that way, or want to think they are. ultimately, it is humanity and it is exaggerated. >> he writes in his review.

washington is unique because it's human pageant is played out entirely on someone else's dime. mr. leibovich is the first -- isn't the first professional observer to notice that washington's economy is from top to bottom. parasitic. he is one of the first to not be especially bothered by it. someone else said to me, what is the solution to all of this? is there a need for a solution? why aren't you more bothered by it? >> i am bothered by it. i was bothered enough to write a whole book about it. i'm fully aware that this is subsidized by taxpayers, public trust. i'm not in the solutions game. there is not a chapter at the end where it says, what should we do?

that's not my book to write. i'm a journalist, observer, trying to hold a mirror to this world -- hopefully in a way that will help people outside of this world understand it. if it brings up prescriptions, fantastic. >> married to a doctor. what kind? >> family practice. we have been married almost 20 years. she works for the poor in northeast d.c. at a free clinic. she is not involved in politics, not particularly engaged in the political media world, which is a great thing. >> three kids. how old? >> 12, 9, and six. all girls. love them to death. >> the front of your book, "this town," has a picture of a human being here cut off at the face. who is that? >> it's a great question. i guess the true answer is that

the art director at the publisher pulled it off stock photo of the internet. there is your answer. >> mark leibovich, we are out of time. the book is "this town: two parties and a funeral - plus plenty of valet parking! - in america's gilded capital." thanks for joining us. [captioning performed by the national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2013]

more than 25 hundred people attended last nights correspondents dinner at the monteith and hilton. they heard from president obama and entertainer jewel mckale after an award ceremony. we will start tonight with one of our favorite parts, which is the awarding of our awards for excellence in journalism. to help us with that is a valued member of our board, doug mills. a terrific photojournalists. >> the first award of the night, the judges chose to winners this year which recognizes excellence in white house coverage. keeler.ers are rihanna

the next award